Wakilii

Tabu v Langi (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0023 OF 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 95 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for taxation of advocate/client bill of costs under section 57 of The Advocates Act and Order 52 rules 1 and 3 of The Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Application granted; advocate/client bill of costs ordered to be taxed by Taxing Officer

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court held that section 57 of The Advocates Act is procedural rather than jurisdictional and distinguishes between an application for taxation of costs and a suit for recovery of costs. Non-compliance with the service requirements does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order taxation, as the statutory bar applies only to suits for recovery, not taxation applications. Application allowed; bill of costs ordered to be taxed.

Outcome

Application granted; advocate/client bill of costs ordered to be taxed by Taxing Officer

Facts

The applicant advocate rendered legal services to the respondent in High Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2008, which concluded on 17 October 2013 with each party bearing its own costs. The applicant alleged he served an advocate/client bill of costs on the respondent on 16 September 2014 by email, but the respondent failed to pay. The applicant brought this application seeking an order for taxation of the bill. The respondent did not file a reply or appear at the hearing. The applicant had not attached a copy of the itemised bill of costs to his supporting affidavit, nor provided proof of proper service as required by section 57 of The Advocates Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant properly served the respondent with an itemised advocate/client bill of costs as required by sections 57 and 58 of The Advocates Act.
  2. Whether non-compliance with section 57 of The Advocates Act bars the court from ordering taxation of the advocate/client bill of costs.
  3. Whether section 57 of The Advocates Act prohibits an application for taxation of costs as distinct from commencing a suit for recovery of costs.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The advocate/client bill of costs shall be taxed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Advocate and Client Costs — Requirements for Service of Bill of Costs
Section 57 of The Advocates Act requires an advocate/client bill of costs to be signed by the advocate and delivered to the client personally, by registered post, or left at the client's place of business or residence before any suit to recover costs may be commenced, with a mandatory one-month waiting period after delivery.
Advocate and Client Costs — Itemised vs Lump Sum Bills in Contentious Matters
For contentious business, an advocate/client bill of costs must be itemised under section 58(2) of The Advocates Act if it is to be taxed, specifying in detail how legal costs are made up, whereas a lump sum bill describing only the total amount is insufficient for taxation purposes.
Advocate and Client Costs — Distinction Between Party-Party and Advocate-Client Taxation
In advocate/client taxation there is an almost irrefutable presumption that all costs incurred with the express or implied approval of the client are reasonably incurred, whereas in party-party taxation costs are limited to what was necessary to enable the adverse party to conduct the litigation and charges for mere convenience (luxuries) are disallowed.
Advocate and Client Costs — Section 57 as Procedural Not Jurisdictional
Section 57 of The Advocates Act is procedural rather than jurisdictional; non-compliance does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order taxation of an advocate/client bill of costs, though it bars commencement of a suit for recovery of costs before the statutory requirements are met.
Advocate and Client Costs — Distinction Between Taxation Application and Suit for Recovery
Section 57 of The Advocates Act distinguishes between an application for taxation of a bill of costs and a suit for recovery of costs; the statutory bar on suits before proper service and expiry of one month does not apply to taxation applications, which may be brought under section 58(5) and Regulation 10 of The Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (9)

  • Re An Advocate; In Re A Taxation of Costs [1955] 2 QB 252
  • Tobin and Twomey v Kerry Foods Ltd [1999] 1 ILRM 428
  • Gundry v Sainsbury [1910] 1 KB 645
  • Harold v Smith
  • Dyotte v Reid (1876) 10 ILTR 110
  • A & L Goodbody Solicitors v Colthurst [2003] IEHC 74
  • Boyne v Dublin Bus [2006] IEHC 209
  • Garbutt v Edwards
  • Kibuuka Musoke and Company v The Liquidator of African Textile Mill Limited (High Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Tabu v Langi (MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0023 OF 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 95 (20 July 2017)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.